Court backs dismissals under TUPE rules during insolvency

Posted on 15 Mar 2023
Share Blog Post

Harris & Co chartered accountants Northampton report that a new Court of Appeal ruling has made clear that administrators who dismiss employees before the sale of an insolvent business are not judged to be acting unfairly under the rules governing TUPE, opening the way for staff numbers to be reduced if necessary to keep a business going until sold.

The ruling follows a case heard by the Court of Appeal involving employees of Crystal Palace football club. When the club went into administration in January 2010, the administrator sought to sell it as a going concern. In May of the same year the administrator found the club had severe cashflow problems and decided to ‘mothball’ the club for some months in the hope that a sale could be achieved at a later date.

As a result, four of the club’s administrative staff were made redundant. Their claim for unfair dismissal was originally turned down, and they then brought a case at an employment appeal tribunal (EAT).

The EAT decided that the dismissals were automatically unfair under TUPE rules which state that a dismissal for a reason connected with a transfer of a business will be an automatically unfair dismissal unless the employer demonstrated that the dismissal took place for an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason entailing changes in the workforce.

The EAT took the view that in the Crystal Palace case the ETO defence did not apply since the dismissals were ‘part and parcel of a process, with the purpose of selling the business’, rather than for reasons connected with continuing to conduct the business.

The subsequent Court of Appeal ruling reverses this decision.

Richie Alder, employment partner at law firm Trowers & Hamlins said: ‘Administrators of insolvent companies will be breathing a sigh of relief, as this decision provides them with scope to dismiss staff in order to keep the business afloat until a buyer can be found – without these dismissals being found to be automatically unfair.’

View more blog posts

MTD Penalty Regime Delayed for Landlords & Self-Employed Until April 2027
Posted on 28 Nov 2025
MTD Penalty Regime Delayed for Landlords & Self-Employed Until April 2027
read more
The Stinging Truth: 69% of Businesses See 'No Benefits' from MTD for Income Tax
Posted on 26 Nov 2025
The Stinging Truth: 69% of Businesses See 'No Benefits' from MTD for Income Tax
read more
NIC hammer blow
Posted on 23 Jun 2025
NIC hammer blow
read more
Youth mobility scheme
Posted on 21 May 2025
Youth mobility scheme
read more
whatsapp
Back To Top
01604 660661